Archive for the ‘Ian Tomlinson’ Category

Ian Tomlinson’ s death became a controversy because it was believed that the family was misled about his death by the police. On April 1,2009, Ian Tomlinson was walking to go home when he collapsed and died on a London street, at the periphery of a G20 protest. Moments earlier he had been struck from behind by a police officer’s baton on a leg and pushed down on the ground.

Simon Harwood was the Metropolitan Police that struck and shoved Tomlinson to the ground. The decision not to charge Simon Harwood for the death of Ian Tomlinson was overturned primarily because it turned into a scandal when a video footage of the attack was released and it was only then, it was investigated as a criminal inquiry. The death of Ian Tomlinson was very controversial because many facts were not released to the public or to Mr. Tomlinson’s family in a timely fashion. Simon Harwood, charged with manslaughter for the death of Ian Tomlinson, has pleaded not guilty.

According to the first investigation report of Tomlinson’s death -which was released by the police – Mr. Tomlinson died of a sudden heart attack. The findings of a different pathologist for the second post-mortem stated that Tomlinson died as a result of bleeding caused by a blunt force trauma in the abdomen. There were discrepancies in post mortem reports and multiple autopsies needed to be conducted.

Tomlinson case is a well-known example of police deviance and attempt to evade accountability. Their initial failure to respond promptly rises a serious question of accountability. The governing and investigative body that ensures police are using reasonable force during protests have failed. Their failure to respond earnestly, in addition to some misleading information given by the police suggests that the organization is to blame for such corruption. Corrupt practices seemed to surround the organization, as seen in Tomlinson case through misleading reports and delayed information release. Police present that time of incident refused to cooperate and etc. In short, if formal accountability has failed to be delivered in this particular case, then cultural and organizational changes must be made

Punch (2009) states : “Yet a wealth of material- in academic publications, historical accounts, public inquiries, documentaries and media exposures, court cases, biographies of officers and films- reveals that police officers frequently if not routinely bend and break the disciplinary rules and the law. This is a recurring and persistent theme since the commencement of ‘modern’ public policing early in the nineteenth century. The combined historical and contemporary evidence indicates that the police can be venal and violent and can behave irresponsibly while evading accountability. For accountability is not something an agency can claim to possess simply because it meets the certain criteria or has procedures in place; rather it is something an agency convincingly delivers to the satisfaction of the stakeholders- both routinely but especially at critical moments.”

What made this story controversial is not only the use of force that led to Tomlinson’s death, but also the evasion of accountability . It is evident in this situation that the role of the police in protests is strategically coercive in nature, and it raises the question ” who are they protecting by exercising unnecessary force or violence?” Kettling is one of the tactics used in protests that raises questions of ethics and widely criticised as one of the inappropriate use of police force. Kettling is containment strategy and the police use their bodies (cordon) as a fence to stripped off any human rights. Police prevent people from getting in and getting out and sometimes police can deprive them of food and water for long periods of time. Often, after a group of protesters has been kettled in, the police tighten the cordon, and push the protesters into a smaller and smaller space until they are packed very closely together; if the protesters push back, the police retaliate by hitting them with their shields, their batons, or their hands. Sometimes police officers go inside the kettle and roughly pull out someone they suspect of having committed a crime — or someone who is shouting, or holding a sign, or taking photographs.

The Ian Tomlinson case showed issues surrounding police violence, direct action for accountability and mass media. The development of information taken by camera phones and digital cameras by bystanders, and shared or released to a networking sites is a new capability or power that captures the real image of policing. According to Goldsmith (2010), the concept of new visibility and Ian Tomlinson case are used to illustrate the unprecedented power of this new capability and the challenges that it poses for police image management. Following Tomlinson’s death, this ‘new visibility’ has put the police image under scrutiny and it also pushes the police organization to take some action of some kind. After the footage of the attack was released, some facts became more transparent to the public’s eye and supported the idea of the police misleading the public and the family of the victim: (1) The family was not told that they had a legal right to attend the autopsy, and (2) The first pathologist who examined Tomlinson, Freddy Patel, also conducted the autopsies for the Home Office and the police. Patel found that he had died of coronary artery disease. The second post-mortem was ordered by the family’s legal team and the IPCC after the footage was broadcast. (3) The second post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Nat Cary, who stated that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding. (4) The first pathologist did not mention if there were additional injuries and also omitted to mention blood volume found in the abdomen.(5) Before the officer was identified (Simon Harwood), an image was published showing his ID badge number was missing on his shoulder and his face covered with a balaclava.

The police are given their own judgement to decide to use force that is appropriate, necessary and reasonable according to the situation. If there is no set guidelines to the appropriateness, reasonableness and what is necessary use of force, how is there going to be a formal accountability in terms of dealing with police violence? Concealing these problems and as long as it is hidden from the public, it will not be dealt with. It only means that the organization itself is to blame. As Punch ( 2009) points out that there is no individual in an organization so therefore it makes no sense to deal with police corruption in a bad apple level. If police corruption is universal, present at some point in time and in every level of the organization, therefore, it should be dealt with as “rotten barrels” level and approaching it in a level of “ bad apples”, will simply NOT WORK. It only means that police corruption is formed within the institution.

The death of Ian Tomlinson on April 1st 2009 has created a great deal of controversy and has severely dented the British public’s trust of the Metropolitan Police Service and shocked many who have seen the video of the death online or on television. The 47-year old newspaper vendor was on his way home from work, when PC Simon Harwood of the Metropolitan Police, an officer with previous allegations of excessive force on his record, struck Tomlinson from behind with a baton, then proceeded to shove the man to the ground, minutes after which he died of internal injuries.
Tomlinson’s death is a widely studied and well-known case of alleged police misconduct, in which the victim died moments after being in contact with police. The incident occurred in London during the G20 summit protests, and was captured from different angles on both video and still photographs, and was seen by multiple eyewitnesses. Not only were the violent actions of the police officer apparently unwarranted, but the events following both immediately and as a part of the resulting investigation have all seen allegations of police misconduct.
Ian Tomlinson was a middle-aged white male employed casually at a newsstand in London, having been separated from his second wife for several years as a result of alcoholism. His health was deteriorated as a result of alcohol abuse and extended periods of homelessness, and he was living at a shelter at the time. He was uninvolved in the protests happening at the G20 meetings, and was merely on his way home from work at the time of the incident.
Police Constable Simon Harwood, the police officer who was allegedly involved in the events just before Tomlinson’s death, reportedly has faced two previous misconduct hearings. The first, happening over a decade prior to the Tomlinson incident, involved allegations from a motorist claiming Harwood used excessive force.
It is because of the presence of a great many handheld video recorders at the scene and meticulous reporting by the Guardian news outlet that the case even came to light; had it not been for the media outcry, the police would have had the death ruled accidental and as the result of a heart attack. This is indeed what they did immediately following the death, a position from which they backed down following the intense media and public pressure regarding PC Harwood’s actions. The employment of a discredited coroner for the autopsy, as well as the conscious muddling of information regarding the death, have led to allegations of corruption and police deviance, adding one new case to the many which have discredited the Metropolitan Police over its lengthy history.
The case of corruption and the unlawful death of Ian Tomlinson is by no means the first major allegation of corruption within the Metropolitan Police, the enormous police service which serves Greater London with the exception of the very core, which is the jurisdiction of the City of London Police. Maurice Punch, leading author on police corruption both past and present, details this history of corruption in his 2009 book, Police Corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. In chapter 5, entitled “The UK: London, miscarriages of justice and Northern Ireland”, Punch investigates the history of the Metropolitan Police and their constantly shifting image in the eye of the public.
The origins of the Metropolitan Police lie in the 1829 formation of the New Police of the Metropolis, intended from the outset to be a solution to the corruption problems within the previous patchwork system of police forces in London. Continental Europe, particularly France, has police systems which were riddled with corruption and public mistrust; the new Met was designed to prevent that. It had no detectives at the beginning, and its constables did not carry firearms on patrol. It was seen as vital in the eyes of the Home Secretary at the time that the public perception of the London police force was quite positive, which at the time it was indeed (Punch 126).
The Met successfully upheld its corruption-free reputation for almost 50 years, until it was rocked by the emergence of evidence that its internal Criminal Investigation Department was in fact quite corrupt indeed (Punch 127). While numerous reforms were passed following a number of high-profile cases of corruption and police deviance in the following century, the late-1960s and early 1970s saw a great deal of turmoil within the force, leading Commissioner Robert Mark to implement wide ranging reforms at the start of the decade. This saw the establishment of A10, the division which was to investigate all complaints regarding officers of the Met (Punch 133).
While it is true that the reforms may have reduced corruption in the force, Stephen Mastrofsky provides evidence in his 2004 report Controlling Street-Level Police Discretion that sudden changes and revolutions within a policing organization do not take hold immediately, and require a change in organizational structure and behavior to have effect. Acts of police deviance do not occur in isolation from the overall policing structure and environment; the attitude of the Commissioner and the very goals and informal policies of the organization can influence the behavior of officers on the street (Mastrofski 105).
Commissioner Mark’s formation of the A10 was the precursor, decades ago, to the modern Independent Police Complaints Commissioner, the IPCC, which now heads inquiries into cases of police misconduct. The inquiry into PC Harwood’s alleged wrongful actions in the death of Ian Tomlinson was conducted by the IPCC, which occurred in the spring of 2011 in front of a jury.
Willem De Lint and Alan Hall’s 2009 book Intelligent Control: Developments in public order policing in Canada also focuses on the role of discretion in police actions on the streets. In chapter 8, “Intelligent Control”, they present the Canadian angle to police control, particularly the importance of a dynamic and shifting strategy. They believe that in a democracy such as Canada, much like the United Kingdom, police must display “coercive capacity” only when absolutely required, in order to maintain positive public relations (De Lint and Hall 277). Modern news and social media facilitates the spreading of information as well as grievances at a pace never seen before, thus paving the way for the reaction to Ian Tomlinson’s death. The coercive actions of one police officer, which in a past century would not have become well publicized, are now available for millions to view online.
It is the power of public opinion which brought PC Harwood and the Metropolitan Police to account over the death of Ian Tomlinson; without it, his death may simply have been conveniently ruled as being of natural causes and the police force would have continued on. The 2011 inquiry headed by the IPCC found the death to be wrongful (Crown Prosecution Service). This month, the October of 2011, Simon Harwood pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter; his trial will commence in the summer of 2012 (Malik). The long-term implications of the case on the Metropolitan Police are yet to be seen, although the impact of modern communications upon police actions in the public eye is evident.
The events following the death of Tomlinson, particularly the actions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, underscore the difficulties in police reform and the prevention of police deviance. The IPCC, formed as a result of the 2002 Police Reform Act, was intended to erase the public image of corruption in the organization which came before it, the Police Complaints Authority. It is run independently of the police and is under an entirely separate division of government. None of the investigators in the IPCC are police officers, and by law have never worked for the police in the past. This separation was designed to create a public perception of impartiality; however, the wrongful killing of Ian Tomlinson and the mishandling of the case which followed caused permanent damage to the reputation of the IPCC.
It is important to note, however, that the investigation was not placed under IPCC control until a week after the incident, and was under control of the City of London police force until that point. In fact, the city coroner excluded the IPCC from the first postmortem examination, and appointed the controversial Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel to perform the procedure. The doctor, educated at the University of Zambia and having spent many years conducting such procedures for the police, had been previously investigated for misconduct in the case of Sally White, in which a young woman’s body was found naked, bruised, and bleeding; Patel found her cause of death to be an unrelated heart attack. Nevertheless, the City of London police retained Patel, and he conducted the postmortem on Tomlinson, declaring him to also have died of a heart attack, unrelated to the trauma he suffered from being struck by a baton and shoved to the ground just minutes before his death. It was only following the publication of the video showing Tomlinson’s assault that the case was transferred from the London police to the IPCC, who ordered a second postmortem, which found the trauma from the fall to have caused internal bleeding and organ damage, killing Tomlinson. The third and fourth examinations only confirmed these results. Patel is now suspended and faces several charges of misconduct, raising questions about why he was assigned to the case to begin with.
Given that three postmortem examinations had found Tomlinson’s internal injuries to be the cause of death, and that the baton strike had caused severe bruising, it was surprising that for nearly two years following the incident, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute Simon Harwood for his role in the death. They cited the first examination by Patel as being contradictory to those which followed, and said this would cause issues in finding clear evidence. It was more than two years following the death of Ian Tomlinson that PC Simon Harwood was charged with manslaughter, to which he has pleaded not guilty and for which he will be tried in the summer of 2012. The decision to prosecute came only after years of pressure from the media, the public, as well as several prominent officials and even the second medical examiner. This raises questions about the impartiality of the Crown Prosecution Service in its decision, as well as the way in which the investigation was managed.
It was not only the investigation which raised serious questions about police conduct in the death of Ian Tomlinson. The very reasons for which he encountered the police have been investigated, raising doubts about both police culture and police policy when dealing with protests such as those at the G20. One reason for which police have been criticized is the tactics they employed in the protest situation, particularly containment, or kettling. In containment, lines of police officers herd the crowd into small spaces, trapping them within a certain area. This tactic is compared to a kettle, in that the containment of boiling water creates pressure within the kettle. Kettling often leads to undesirable situations for people entirely uninvolved in the protests which police are attempting to control. It was exactly in this situation which Ian Tomlinson found himself, as he was simply trying to walk home, but was caught in front of a police cordon trying to kettle in a crowd of protestors. Such a tactic is unfortunately often used in modern demonstrations by the police, as was the case in the G20 protests, after which the Toronto Police promised to never again use kettling.
It is important to question not only the tactics, but also the culture and society behind the actions of police in a given situation. While kettling is what the police were involved in at the time, the entire situation was the result of an adversarial attitude adopted by police forces in protest scenarios, an attitude which has been demonstrated more recently with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations around the world. In even the most liberal nations, lawful protests are met by large police forces in full riot gear, driving the culture of paramilitary responses to otherwise peaceful demonstrations. Simon Harwood himself was a constable in the Metropolitan Police Service, specifically the Territorial Support Group, a special unit set up to manage difficult protests and riots. Perhaps without the anger created by the us-versus-them attitude of riot police in protest situations, Harwood would never have been in the position nor have had the urge to strike Tomlinson with his baton and then shove him upon the concrete.
Ian Tomlinson’s death was a significant factor in changes and reforms to the police systems in the United Kingdom, particularly with regards to police tactics used at protests. The Metropolitan Police decided to release a report within months of the incident, and found that internalized police attitudes affect modern protest situations. The report acknowledges that calling out police dressed in full riot gear enflames otherwise peaceful protests, and that police must take use of different tactics to prevent violence. The IPCC, while slow to act, is not under review for its actions. However, justice has begun to act on both Dr Patel, who has been charged with misconduct, and Simon Harwood, who has been charged with manslaughter. Perhaps, had it been for different attitudes and cultures regarding protests, along with different tactics in dealing with them, the entire situation would have turned out differently and no death would have occurred that day in London.

Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor who died at age 47during the 2009G20 protests in London, England. Ian Tomlinson’ s death became a controversy because it was believed that the family was misled about his death by the police. There were discrepancies in post mortem reports and multiple autopsies needed to be conducted. According to the first investigation report of Tomlinson’s death -which was released by the police – Mr. Tomlinson died of a sudden heart attack. The findings of a different pathologist for the second post-mortem stated that Tomlinson died as a result of bleeding caused by a blunt force trauma in the abdomen.

On April 1,2009, Ian Tomlinson was walking to go home when he collapsed and died on a London street, at the periphery of a G20 protest. Moments earlier he had been struck from behind by a police officer’s baton on a leg and pushed down on the ground. The death of Ian Tomlinson was very controversial because many facts were not released to the public or to Mr. Tomlinson’s family in a timely fashion. In 2010, no charges were laid because of the

As stated in Guardian newspaper published on April 18, 2011, “The New York fund manager who handed the Guardian the video evidence said last night that he felt vindicated by the findings.”Now I’m glad I came forward. It’s possible Mr. Tomlinson’s death would have been swept under the rug otherwise.

The other facts that supported the idea of the police misleading the public and the family of the victim were (1) The family was not told that they had a legal right to attend the autopsy, and (2) The first pathologist who examined Tomlinson, Freddy Patel, also conducted the autopsies for the Home Office and the police. Patel found that he had died of coronary artery disease. The second post-mortem was ordered by the family’s legal team and the IPCC after the footage was broadcast. (3) The second post-mortem was conducted by Dr.Nat

Cary, who stated that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding. (4) The first pathologist did not mention if there were additional injuries and also omitted to mention blood volume found in the abdomen.(5) Before the officer was identified (Simon Harwood), an image was published showing his ID badge number was missing on his shoulder and his face covered with a balaclava.

In my opinion, the decision not to charge Simon Harwood for the death of Ian Tomlinson was overturned primarily because it turned into a scandal when a video footage was released. Who looks after the citizens when the police fail to their job?

I used google search engine and typed Ian Tomlinson and G20. It showed 597,000 results in .30 seconds. Wikipedia provided detailed information and the times of the incident were stated in accordance to video footages surrendered and witnesses that came forward. It also showed various newspaper articles mostly by newspaper agencies from the UK including: The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and many more.

Simon Harwood, charged with manslaughter for the death of Ian Tomlinson, has pleaded not guilty. Ian Tomlinson was a 47 years old newspaper vendor who collapsed and died on the streets of London during the G20 protest on April, 2009. He collapsed shortly after he was hit by a baton on the leg and pushed down to the ground by Simon Harwood.

As I mentioned before in my earlier blog post, the decision not to charge Simon Harwood for the death of Ian Tomlinson was overturned primarily because it turned into a scandal when video footage of the attack was released. According to the first investigation, Tomlinson had died of a heart attack . However later findings showed he had died of internal bleeding. Instead, what made this story controversial is not only the use of force that led to Tomlinson’s death, but also the the evasion of accountability . It is evident in this situation that the role of the police in protests is strategically coercive in nature, and it raises the question ” who are they protecting by exercising force or violence?”

As Tilly (2004) stated trust is a quantity that is often stored up and squandered depending on the recent record of public authorities’ use of valued resources. A specialized police liaison should also actively work to maintain their relationship of trust with labour and other groups through communication and education. While establishing trust, the police liaison should also maintain neutrality.

De Lint & Hall (2009), documented the enhanced technical, organizational professional paramilitary and intelligence capabilities of the police allowing to use overwhelmingly precise force against large or small demonstrations. In particular those groups which are unwilling to play by the rules of the liaison approach. The intelligence gathering and the development of containment strategies, such as the use of preventative detention and security fences, as well as the sit ins at political conferences in isolated areas, are all recognized as important element of public order enforcement toolkit. Consistent with the liaison approach in general, we argue that many of these strategies are aimed at avoiding confrontation and concealing coercion. The use of covert intelligence and pre-emptive, or targeted arrests, are particularly key features of this effort. Covert intelligence and preemptive or targeted arrests imply that there is an increasing convergence of ideas around the integration of consensual and coercive strategies.

Their initial failure to respond promptly rises a serious question of accountability. The governing and investigative body that ensures police are using reasonable force during protests have failed. Their failure to respond earnestly, in addition to some misleading information given by the police suggests that the organization is to blame for such corruption. Corrupt practices seemed to surround the organization, as seen in Tomlinson case through misleading reports and delayed information release. Police present that time of incident refusedto cooperate and etc. In short, if formal accountability has failed to be delivered in this particular case, then cultural and organizational changes must be made.

Punch (2009) stated , Yet a wealth of material- in academic publications, historical accounts, public inquiries, documentaries and media exposures, court cases, biographies of officers and films- reveals that police officers frequently if not routinely bend and break the disciplinary rules and the law. This is a recurring and persistent theme since the commencement of ‘modern’ public policing early in the nineteenth century. The combined historical and contemporary evidence indicates that the police can be venal and violent and can behave irresponsibly while evading accountability. For accountability is not something an agency can claim to possess simply because it meets the certain criteria or has procedures in place; rather it is something an agency convincingly delivers to the satisfaction of the stakeholders- both routinely but especially at critical moments.

It is clear that the police organization needs some special attention and should use this scandal as a positive experience to implement significant changes. to begin, they have to take responsibility for their actions ( not just Simon Harwood but the responsibility of the organization as a whole) by admitting the police were accountable for the death of Ian Tomlinson. Their defesiveness will only be receive by other police personnel as permissibility to deviate and perceived evasion of accountability as long as it can be concealed from the public’s eye.

The death of Ian Tomlinson in the spring of 2009 is a widely studied and well-known case of alleged police misconduct, in which the victim died moments after being in contact with police. The incident occurred in London during the G20 summit protests, and was captured from different angles on both video and still photographs, and was seen by multiple eyewitnesses. Not only were the violent actions of the police officer apparently unwarranted, but the events following both immediately and as a part of the resulting investigation have all seen allegations of police misconduct.

Ian Tomlinson was a middle-aged white male employed casually at a newsstand in London, having been separated from his second wife for several years as a result of alcoholism. His health was deteriorated as a result of alcohol abuse and extended periods of homelessness, and he was living at a shelter at the time. He was uninvolved in the protests happening at the G20 meetings, and was merely on his way home from work at the time of the incident.

Police Constable Simon Harwood, the police officer who was allegedly involved in the events just before Tomlinson’s death, reportedly has faced two previous misconduct hearings. The first, happening over a decade prior to the Tomlinson incident, involved allegations from a motorist claiming Harwood used excessive force.

The video of the initial incident is readily available online on YouTube, with many hundreds of thousands of views. Uploaded by The Guardian news outlet, it clearly depicts a police constable, Simon Harwood, first striking Tomlinson across the legs before lunging at the man and shoving him, sending him flying into the concrete. Ian Tomlinson can be seen having been walking in front of the police officers with his hands in his pockets, posing no threat whatsoever. The comments on the video are active to this day, and people continue to debate the extent to which the officers’ actions were inappropriate.

At the scene upon Tomlinson’s collapse, officers reportedly denied help from onlookers including those qualified in emergency medical aid, and waited for the arrival of their own medics. It was in their hands that the still-breathing man died. The police force has been accused of attempting to negate the impact of the story, releasing scant information of the events surrounding the death, and appointing a coroner well known for inaccurate and often understated results. The initial postmortem examination declared the death to be the result of a heart attack – three postmortems following it were in agreement that this was incorrect and the death was in fact the result of trauma.

The Guardian, appears to take a particularly acute interest to the case, having been involved in the initial bringing to light of the situation surrounding the apparently mysterious death of an individual during the protests. It maintains an updated webpage containing the latest stories, graphics, videos, and even an interactive timeline of Tomlinson’s death and the events which followed.

An internet search quickly reveals not only a rather well-developed Wikipedia article, but also a number of insightful news articles predominantly from British media sources such as the BBC, The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Times, among many others. Alongside the numerous public blogs and social media pages declaring their outrage at the case, there is a dedicated website set up by Ian Tomlinson’s family and friends which detail their personal grief and their fight for justice with regards to his death.

There appears to be a great deal of both mass and social media interest in the death of Ian Tomlinson and the allegations surrounding it. The accompanying videos and graphics which can be found online present interested researchers with primary information. In particular, the material compiled by The Guardian provides excellent insight into the details and recent events regarding the case, and the Wikipedia article is well written and very well sourced. This is a case which is indeed quite interesting to read and follow in the news, and is sufficiently well-documented for any casual reader to find a great deal of information regarding its specifics.